Commentary on Romans

law; and as they were proved to have transgressed it, they could not free themselves from the charge
of iniquity, and a sentence against them had already been pronounced by the mouth of God himself.
He at the same time obviates any objection which might have been made by them — that the
covenant of God, which was the symbol of holiness, would have been violated, if they were not to
be distinguished from others. Here he first shows, that they excelled not others by the right of the
covenant, for they had by their unfaithfulness departed from it: and then, that he might not derogate
from the perpetuity of the divine promise, he concedes to them some privilege as arising from the
covenant; but it proceeded from the mercy of God, and not from their merits. So that with regard
to their own qualifications they were on a level with the Gentiles. He then proves by the authority
of Scripture, that both Jews and Gentiles were all sinners; and he also slightly refers to the use of
the law.
Having wholly deprived all mankind of their confidence in their own virtue and of their boast
of righteousness, and laid them prostrate by the severity of God’s judgment, he returns to what he
had before laid down as his subject — that we are justified by faith; and he explains what faith is,
and how the righteousness of Christ is by it attained by us. To these things he adds at the end of
the third chapter a remarkable conclusion, with the view of beating down the fierceness of human
pride, that it might not dare to raise up itself against the grace of God: and lest the Jews should
confine so great a favor of God to their own nation, he also by the way claims it in behalf of the
Gentiles.
In the fourth chapter he reasons from example; which he adduces as being evident, and hence
not liable to be cavilled at; and it is that of Abraham, who, being the father of the faithful ought to
be deemed a pattern and a kind of universal example. Having then proved that he was justified by
faith, the Apostle teaches us that we ought to maintain no other way of justification. And here he
shows, that it follows from the rule of contraries, that the righteousness of works ceases to exist,
since the righteousness of faith is introduced. And he confirms this by the declaration of David,
who, by making the blessedness of man to depend on the mercy of God, takes it away from works,
as they are incapable of making a man blessed. He then treats more fully what he had before shortly
referred to — that the Jews had no reason to raise themselves above the Gentiles, as this felicity is
equally common to them both, since Scripture declares that Abraham obtained this righteousness
in an uncircumcised state: and here he takes the opportunity of adding some remarks on the use of
circumcision. He afterwards subjoins, that the promise of salvation depends on God’s goodness
alone: for were it to depend on the law, it could not bring peace to consciences, which it ought to
confirm, nor could it attain its own fulfillment. Hence, that it may be sure and certain, we must, in
embracing it, regard the truth of God alone, and not ourselves, and follow the example of Abraham,
who, turning away from himself, had regard only to the power of God. At the end of the chapter,
in order to make a more general application of the adduced example, he introduces several
comparisons.
In the fifth chapter, after having touched on the fruit and effects of the righteousness of faith,
he is almost wholly taken up with illustrations, in order to make the point clearer. For, deducing
an argument from one greater, he shows how much we, who have been redeemed and reconciled
to God, ought to expect from his love; which was so abundantly poured forth towards us, when we
were sinners and lost, that he gave for us his only-begotten and beloved Son. He afterwards makes
comparisons between sin and free righteousness, between Christ and Adam, between death and